Process Intensification and Integration for Sustainable Design

A key observation is the increase of both revenue and processing costs with increasing NGL content. As measured by ROI, all feeds (including the high acid case) are worth treating, except the high methane case (Feed #1). From the sensitivity analysis, it can be concluded that for the base case, shale gas processing is still profitable for even the highest feedstock prices. However, a drop of one standard deviation in product prices will make processing highly unprofitable.

Included in the Appendix are key parameters for the process simulations. Further guidance can be found in the Bryan Research & Engineering guide [24].

2.A

Table 2.A.1 Dehydration column parameters for the base case (Feed #3).

Feed flow rate is a standard vapor volumetric flow rate.

Table 2.A.2 Makeup composition for the base case (Feed #3).

Table 2.A.3 Glycol circulation rate for the base case (Feed #3).

2.B

Table 2.B.1 Demethanizer column parameters.

Feed flow rate is a standard vapor volumetric flow rate.

Table 2.B.2 Low temperature separator (LTS) inlet temperature.

Table 2.B.3 Outlet pressure for the pressure changing equipment.

2.C

Table 2.C.1 Fractionation train column parameters for the base case (Feed #3).

Feed flow rate is a standard vapor volumetric flow rate.

2.D

Table 2.D.1 Acid gas removal column parameters.

Feed flow rate is a standard vapor volumetric flow rate.

Table 2.D.2 Makeup composition.

Table 2.D.3 Key heat exchange equipment outlet temperatures.

a Set at 10 °F warmer than inlet gas.

AFC	annualized fixed cost (depreciation)
AOC	annual operating cost
Btu	British thermal unit
CO 2	carbon dioxide
	purchased cost of equipment q
FCI	fixed capital investment
FCI i	fixed capital investment for a given processing unit
FCI S	salvage value of the fixed capital investment
ΔFL mix	average explosiveness of a mixture
	Hand factor for equipment q
gal	gallons
GJ	gigajoules
h	hours
H 2S	hydrogen sulfide
HA	high acid
HV m	average mass heating value
IROI	incremental return on investment
kWh	kilowatt hours
lb	pounds
LFL mix	lower flammability level of a mixture
	mass flow rate
MDEA	methyl diethanolamine
MM$	million dollars
MMBtu	million British thermal units
MMSCFD	million standard cubic feet per day
MSCF	thousand standard cubic feet
N	plant lifetime (number of years)
N 2	nitrogen
NGL	natural gas liquid
N np	number of non‐particulate processing steps
N OL	number of operators per shift
P	number of processing steps where particulate solids are handled
P	average pressure
PRI	process route index
psig	pounds per square inch of gauge pressure
ROI	return on investment
SCF	standard cubic feet
TAC	total annualized cost
TEG	triethylene glycol
TCI	total capital investment
ΔTCI	change in total capital investment for a given additional case
UFL mix	upper flammability limit of a mixture
VC i	total variable cost for each process unit
WCI	working capital investment
yr	years
ρ	average fluid density

1 1 Al‐Douri, A., Sengupta, D., and El‐Halwagi, M.M. (2017). Shale gas monetization – a review of downstream processing to chemicals and fuels. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 45: 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.05.016.

2 2 WVU. (2016) Uncoventional resources. http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/∼jtoro/Petroleum/24_Unconventional-1.pdf (accessed 08 January 2017).

3 3 Hill, R.J., Jarvie, D.M., Zumberge, J. et al. (2007). Oil and gas geochemistry and petroleum systems of the fort worth basin. AAPG Bulletin 91: 456–457. https://doi.org/10.1306/11030606014.